DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing) that this interest rate was its arm’s length price. Therefore, explanation-7 of section 271(1)(c) of the Income

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Transfer Pricing) that this interest rate was its arm’s length price. Therefore, explanation-7 of section 271(1)(c) of the Income

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCIT (OSD),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2546/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax (Osd), 4/249A, Rasim Enclave, Corporate Circle –1(2), Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. Near Savitha Dental College, Goparasanallur, Kattupakkam, Chennai – 600 056. Pan: Aaccc7628P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2017

transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs. 2,26,95,052. 2. Ld. AO/TPO/DRP failed to appreciate that separate benchmarking of support services used in the context of overall distribution business is not justified in law. Without prejudice, submission of secondary analysis to support finding cannot result in estoppel against Appellant and benchmarking contrary to facts and law cannot be justified

NIPPON PAINT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.779/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 92C(1) of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’). 2.5 Erred on facts by comparing the Appellant with the well established companies in applying the BLT. Further, erred on facts and in law in making transfer pricing adjustment without considering suitable adjustments to account for the differences in functional profile

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

price for the valuation of goodwill. Likewise, he further noted that the assessing authority has not examined the justification of the consideration for transfer of IPR and directed the Assessing Officer to re- examine the issue. 3.8 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 31.03.2006 by determining the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

Transfer Pricing order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 was completed after the conclusion of the search, wherein the TPO proposed TP downward adjustment of Rs.407.25 crores on the imports from MIPP. The TPO did not propose any adjustment on the receipt of share capital reported in the Form 3CEB. The assessee had filed appeal against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. ORIENT GREEN POWER COMPANY LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

price of specified domestic transaction. The TPO, Chennai passed an order u/s.92CA(3) on 30.10.2017 disallowing Rs.4,04,49,600/-. Subsequently, the AO has completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s 92CA r.w.s 144C(1) on 29.01.2018 by making following additions:- i) Downward Adjustments suggested by the TPO of Rs.4,04,49,600/-. ii) Disallowance under section 14A of Rs.22

HARLAND CLARKE HOLDING SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2(2), CHENN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the transfer pricing adjustments arising on account of difference

INDIA PISTONS LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2207 & 2208/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2004-05. M/S.India Pistons Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Arjay Apex Centre, Of Income Tax, No.24, College Road, Corporate Circle 2(3) Chennai 600 026. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aaaci 1439E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

271 or section 271BA, if any person in respect of an ITA Nos.2207 & 2208/17 :- 12 -: international transaction or specified domestic transaction,— (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 92D ; (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

Transfer Pricing order\nu/s.92CA(3) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 was completed after\nthe conclusion of the search, wherein the TPO proposed TP\ndownward adjustment of Rs.407.25 crores on the imports from\nMIPP. The TPO did not propose any adjustment on the receipt of\nshare capital reported in the Form 3CEB. The assessee had filed\nappeal against

DURR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the grounds of the appeal are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

transfer pricing analysis (in accordance with the provisions of Sec 92D of the Act read with Rule 1 OD of the Income Tax Rules 1962) carried out by the Appellant following Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) without providing any cogent reasons. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the international transactions of the Appellant being closely linked

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Transfer Pricing Officer and the TPO has passed order u/s.92CA of the Act dated 14.01.2015vide C.R. No.Y-603/TPO 3(2)/A.Y.2011-12, in which the TPO has recommended downward adjustment of Rs.7,40,95,333/- incurred to Management Support Services received from its Associated Enterprises YCH, Singapore. Thereafter the DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai passed draft assessment order u/s.143

AUGUSTAN KNITWEAR P LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

271 or section 271BA, if any person in respect of an international transaction [or specified domestic transaction] (i) Fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 92D. (ii) Fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so; or (iii) Maintains or furnished

EXCELLENCE DATA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ground No. 1 is general in nature whereas ground nos. 21 & 22 are consequential in nature. For Ground No.20, it would be sufficient on our part to direct Ld. AO to grant MAT credit in accordance with law. In all the other grounds, the assessee is aggrieved by certain Transfer Pricing

IT EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ground No. 1 is general in nature whereas ground nos. 21 & 22 are consequential in nature. For Ground No.20, it would be sufficient on our part to direct Ld. AO to grant MAT credit in accordance with law. In all the other grounds, the assessee is aggrieved by certain Transfer Pricing

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1834/Chny/2017 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Iljin Automotive Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.B1 & B2, Sipcot Industrial Park Corporate Circle-2(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Chennai. Vs. Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-2641-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

Transfer Pricing The learned AO, under the directions issued by the Hon'ble DRP: Claim of Additional Depreciation 3.1 Erred in law by rejecting the claim of additional depreciation of INR 13,426,943 on new Plant and machinery made during the course of assessment proceedings by stating that the claim was not supported by a revised return

MITSUBA SICAL INDIA PVT. LIMITED,GUMMIDIPOONDI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.400/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. Mitsuba Sical India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Previously Mitsuba Sical (India Corporate Circle 4(1) Ltd) Chennai. No.8,Sipcot Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi 601 201. [Pan Aaccm 4446M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 92B(1) of the Act. Ld. DRP took a presumption that impact on the basis of calculation of Arms Length Pricing by applying most appropriate, would be proportionately reduced by deducting the cost of purchase from Non Associated Enterprises. Ld. DRP, also took :- 9 -: a presumption that reduction in margins of the assessee on account of inflated purchases from

JACOBI CARBONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant and in rejecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price (‘CUP’) as the Most Appropriate ITA No.386/Mds./2017 :- 3 -: Method (‘MAM’). The Hon’ble DRP has erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO/AO. 2.2 The Ld. TPO/AO erred in appreciating the fact that the Appellant had undertaken a scientific search on a bonafide intention